003-68402-68870

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS    99  15.2.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT CONCERNING GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following Chamber judgment[1]:   SECTION 2   Pialopoulos and others v. Greece (no. 37095/97)       Violation Article 1 of Protocol No. 1                                                                                                   and violation Article 6 § 1   The applicants, all Greek nationals, are: Michael Pialopoulos, born in 1951 and living in Pefki in Attika; Aristophanes Alexiou, born in 1930 living in Filothei in Attika; Nikolaos Georgakopoulos, the first applicant’s stepbrother, born in 1964 and living in Athens and Aristea Pialopoulos, the first applicant’s sister, born in 1949 and living in Geneva.   The applicants complained that, since 1987, they had been unable to use their property, a plot of land on which the first two applicants originally applied to build a multi-storey shopping precinct, following a series of building prohibitions and attempted expropriations of the land (allegedly to protect the environment).   They also complained that: it had not been substantiated that the expropriation of their land was in the public interest; the authorities failed to comply with a court decision revoking one of the expropriations; domestic law had been violated, since the authorities refused to comply with court judgments and to pay them prior compensation as required by the Greek Constitution and, that they could not enforce the court decisions in their favour.     The European Court of Human Rights accepted that the measures in question were aimed at protecting the environment in a built-up area. However, finding that a fair balance had not been struck between the public interest and the protection of the applicants’ rights, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) to the European Convention on Human Rights.         The Court further found that the authorities had failed to comply with a Court of Appeal decision in the applicants favour and, therefore, held (unanimously) that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing). The Court also held that it was unnecessary to consider whether there had been a violation of Article 13 and that the question of just satisfaction was not ready for decision.   (The judgment is available only in English.)   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts: Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court.  In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its Protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.